what works best? that is, for running a decent-sized club over the long run, is it better to be democratic (team approach with a process) or does authoritarian (limited or single point person) leadership work better?
fb
In my experience, authoritarian usually works better unless people get ticked off or the leader dies/moves/loses interest.
As Jerry Nash once said, every successful scholastic chess program is only one retirement away from collapse. That applies equally well to other chess programs.
Our club is democratic, though I sometimes think our members wish it were authoritarian, as they seem to enjoy leaving as many responsibilities as possible to me. As the founding organizer, however, I consider a democratic process essential for the following reasons:
[]When there’s money involved, there shouldn’t be only one person deciding how to make it and what to spend it on.[/]
[]Especially if there’s also a checking account.[/]
[]When the club owns equipment, one person shouldn’t feel free to walk off with it.[/]
[]What the Dude in Charge enjoys most is not always what the members enjoy most, and if he doesn’t respond to their desires, turnout will dry up.[/]
[]If the Dude in Charge departs, there needs to be some structure in place that will allow others to pick up where he leaves off. Otherwise, whatever he created will wither – if not vanish overnight.[/]
Ultimately, it’s all about three things: ethics, ownership and continuity.
But there are more choice in the spectrum between “democratic” and “autocractic.” Anarchy except when leadership is asked for - or is otherwise required - is another route.
If the need for authority to be vested in an individual is determined by a majority of the group… it’s still democracy. 
And, for that matter, authoritarian individuals must nevertheless have their power ratified by the club - it’s not like there is an armed force behind the “Chesstator,” that persons must be a member of a chess club, or that individuals disgruntled with a leader can’t start their own competing club.
I have a fondness for the model of organization that when new has individual leaders who control, as it grows those leaders disperse their responsibilities into the larger group, and thus transitions itself into a democracy or a collective.
But as to the question… my opinion is that either can work, and that either would be called for depending on the situation at hand.
Pragmatic arrival…
There have been clubs that annually elect a “king”.
My club has five constitutional positions elected each year. In more than 20 years there have been less than five races with multiple candidates (the nominating committee is charged with finding a candidate for each position but anybody can run with a nomination and second). In some ways the presidency is somewhat authoritarian, but that is probably because the holders of the office have either paid attention to the membership’s desires before proposing changes, or have undertaken actions that don’t require expenditures while providing income (such as providing directing teams for scholastic tournament organizers). In general, the club’s membership is focused on chess not on organizational procedures, and as long as there are opponents, boards, sets, clocks, scoresheets and the site, things are fine.
I joined the Nassau Chess Club in 1975. I directed my first tournament there in 1976. I was encouraged to by the president of the club although I didn’t know why at the time. It turned out that he was terminally ill and passed away in 1977. An election was held and I declined to be president, becoming VP instead. About 2 years later, the new president of the club had a heart attack and ceased all chess activities for a few years. I was then elected president.
Since then I have done about 90% of the club work. While we have a board of 5, the others only fill in if I’m absent except for the treasurer who handles the bank transactions year round.
I have tried to be flexible and make changes if there are enough interested in it. The club has easily been the most successful club open to all ages on Long Island since I’ve been running it. The criteria I use to make that judgement is that we offer the most grand prix points, most FIDE rated events, and have the best attendance. We also have only had two playing sites over those years, and there’s something to be said for stability.
I didn’t plan on being authoritarian. There just aren’t too many volunteers who are willing to take on the responsibility of running a chess club in exchange for a free entry fee. Most like to go home after their tournament game instead of waiting around until closing to lock up.
Usually it takes some sly recruitment (similar to how you were recruited).
I was given a key to my hometown club at 15yrs old…the same time they elected (forced? ha) me to be club VP. Likely it was because everyone in the room had been an officer at least 3 times in the last 4 years and wanted the new blood (fresh meat?) involved. It was a good experience, to have some responsibility without overwhelming duties. Clubs can and will quickly die if the linchpin member(s) don’t spread some responsibility around.
I was an authoritarian chess club director for three years. As long as the director stays active in promoting club nights and tournaments, I think this system is the most efficient. Just because the club is authoritarian doesn’t mean there is only one person directing. There were several times that I relied on assistants to pick up a club night or run a round of a tournament.
For clubs with membership dues, democratic might be the way to go, even if it’s a mere formality (same organizer year after year).
At some point a club may reach some critical mass of committed and interested members such that it can sustain itself in a more democratic way, but my guess is that’ll be more the exception than the rule. And in the meantime, you end up tripping over (and wasting time on) all the procedures you set up, trying to make it look more democratic than it really is.
I wouldn’t use the term “authoritarian” as much as I would “facilitator.” Practically speaking, in most cases that’s what you’re going to have no matter what you call it or what elections or other processes you go thru. And I think that’s ok, as long as you’re in touch with the needs and desires of the club and work to meet them. Maybe that makes you a “benevolent dictator.” 
That doesn’t mean making everyone happy. And it doesn’t mean doing everything someone suggested. Plenty of people have ideas, but then don’t even participate themselves when you try to implement them.
As one “benevolent dictator” to another, if someone comes up with an idea I am all in for it. All they have to do is make the flyers, do the phone calls , contact the store where we play, put up the signs, direct the event, fill out all necessary forms, clean up the paper, cups and bottles when the event is over, provide accurate records of any money taken in or spent, and deal with any problems that arise on their own without bothering me about them. Oh, and they have to dress in club attire when they run their event. And thank the manager and employees for their help, even if they did very little. And put away the sets and clocks, too. Then they see there is more to their bright idea than just having it. That is why most “benevolent dictators” are left alone to do the usual logistical work.
The worst clubs fail not through a lack of ideas, but a want of leadership. Anarchic forces are always prevalent as players prefer to play chess than work to maintain the club. Then they wonder and complain when their club falls apart. I prefer a democratic unit where everyone pitches in to help and we share leadership roles. But someone has to fill the vacuum when things falter; that leads to the authoritarian style of club. The problem of succession is critical as well. Democratic style clubs usually handle this better than authoritarian ones. In the latter, when the leader(s) burn out the club spirals.
I have seen both types succeed, and both types fail. Autocratic works if you do have the benevolent dictator
esp in situations where no one else wants to become involved in club/tournament management. One club
I participated in had 20 certified tournament directors, and a very involved staff. This is ideal, but rare.
rob jones
why not get the best of both worlds and do what the big boys do? have a strictly authoritarian regime but provide the illusion that it’s a democracy!
I think the leadership should be oligarchic, that is, run by a group of, say, five people. It should be more toward the authoritarian side, I think, because it will infuse in the club some seriousness that otherwise would lack. Also, too many cooks spoil the broth. Too many players pitching in ideas will cause decision making to become cumbersome, and conflicting interests could cause players to lose interest in the club altogether.
Moderator Mode: Off
I think this depends on the size and specifics of the chess club. I have started 5 chess clubs in the last 22 years of playing chess. In all but one, I started the clubs to have people to play chess with. In the one, I started the club with as primarily a scholastic club for home schooled children. Of course others, including adults, could and would come.
In all my club starts, there really weren’t many chess tournament experienced people. Because of that, I ran a benevolent dictatorship. In 2 of the clubs, stronger players came in and joined the club after a couple of years. In those instances we went into an oligarchy, as described above.
The authoritarian rule is good when the majority of the members are not experienced.
With a group of experienced players, the oligarchy works better because a club stays stronger when the responsibilities are shared by more people.
In Peoria, which is a mature club with stronger players as well as new people coming in, we use the oligarchy. You must understand that it really looks, in application, like an authoritarian rule. That’s because none of the more experienced guys want the responsibility When it comes to what we are going to do though, the more experienced fellows make sure they are heard in the decision process.
Shraavanchess, why do you want your club to be “serious”? A club should be social and fun. Noisy and with kids and moms. In the building stage, you want to be very welcoming to novice players; make them feel comfortable. “Serious” chess can come later. The players who really want tournament play will stick around. They often want some fun, too. Get them to instruct the novices to get them up to speed. And get a couple of moms involved in running the club. They will take care of a lot of details you did not think of and manage the kids. Clubs with women and girls involve grow. Also helps us to become more “civil.”
Moderator Mode: Off
I definitely agree with the above. When starting a club, the games are definitely more casual.
One of the novices’ favorite is when I play them in a simul. I let them pick what color they want to play and even let a few of them team up on one board. With at least 3 or 4 games going, they can watch and talk. When I get to their board they are supposed to make their move. I can then instruct them based on their move. Depending on the level of player, I might have them take moves back. The more experienced I punish on the board for their mistakes. I still can teach them by showing them what they did wrong and how they can remedy that position.
If there are a lot of kids, having parents and others from teenagers on up in age, help and play themselves makes a big difference.
Once the players learn and get better, the time control gets slower and slower. At the beginning G20 is long for them. After they have improved over a year or so, G30 becomes the longer time control. G45 and G60 come along in use as they mature in the game.
Of course, when I teach these kids bughouse, they love it. I have to make sure they don’t play too much of that, but it certainly is a fun time and teaches them how to use the pieces and their movement and control. When you can drop a piece on an empty square, you need to visualize what squares and pieces they will affect.
Fun is the word. That’s for sure.
What you have described is exactly what we have at our local club. But, I want to maintain not seriousness in tone, but seriousness in chess. Instruction and accomodation for novices are great; in fact, I am the official instructor of the club and frequently help out beginners with their gameplay. It seems that our club is so welcoming to novices that we have trouble attracting advanced players. To attract more “serious” players, our club needs to offer some competition for at least the Class player. Also, if we are not seeming serious about chess, strong players may never show up because they will feel it is beginner oriented. There is another club about ten miles away from us that has about five Class B players and some Class A players as well. Unfortunately, none of them show up at our place, probably because the feels of the clubs is different. The other club is more an oligarchy and decides on events considering the opinions of the few board members. Although we also have board members, we sometimes invite to meetings those who are not even members of the club!
That can apply to chess clubs in college also. I’m not sure what the state of chess is at my old alumni, but as far as I know, the only faculty member that took an interest in running the chess club was an aging professor, and that was in the early 1990’s. Hopefully some other faculty member took over the reigns and kept the club going. -The chess club was a rather casual affair though: mostly limited to the weekly meeting, and a couple of chess meets each semester with other colleges within a reasonable driving distance.
What works best is directly dependent on whom you have in your club.
I have been part of clubs with 20 or more active TDs eager to participate
and lead in governance, as well as clubs that had very few. Those willing
to volunteer, generally would like a voice. What does not work are those
who want a voice, but are not willing to contribute to the clubs continuance.
Rob Jones